Josh Frank

Hypnotics

What is hypnotics?

Hypnotics is the study of hypnosis: a distinct particular altered state of mind.

What’s an altered state (of mind)?

‘Altered state of mind’ (or just ‘altered state’ for short) means any kind of sensing and thinking different from how the brain normally senses and thinks. Humans have sought out altered states of mind since the dawn of time.

How does an altered state feel? What does hypnosis feel like?

Hypnosis is related to, but different from, other altered states. The most common subjective effects of mild hypnosis are focus, relaxation and suggestibility:

• Focus: subjects often report becoming so focused that it seems like the world falls away or doesn't matter
• Relaxation: subjects experience reduced anxiety and mental/physical tension and lowered inhibition
• Suggestibility: subjects are more open and receptive to commands and suggestions

Deep states of hypnosis cause much more profound striking effects, like:

• Sensory distortions: of time, space, pain relief, heat/cold, and more
• Intense emotions: feelings of contentment and well-being - or, conversely, intense fear, anxiety, or dread
• Visual and auditory distortions and pseudo-hallucinations: sights or sounds that don't come from the real world
• Enhanced spirituality: a sense of connection with something divine, or "oneness" with something bigger than oneself
• Consciousness expansion: a perceived awareness of parts of one's own mind not normally accessible

What is hypnosis?

We don’t know for sure.

Hypnosis remains one of the great unexplained unknowns in medical science. Many remain skeptical hypnosis is even a real phenomenon, and dismiss it as a hoax, a placebo or an elaborate form of role-playing; it’s absolutely none of those things.

Many have observed that whatever causes hypnosis feels and behaves like electricity - and the similarities are more than just cosmetic, as noted by the writer and hypnotist A.E. van Vogt. Back at the turn of the 20th century, before the discovery of the electron, new uses for electricity were discovered every day, and the use of electricity was already a profitable industry - even though nobody could really define what electricity was. Such is the case with hypnosis now, van Vogt wrote: we don't know what hypnosis is, but we know what it does.

We haven't discovered the "hypnotic electron" yet - but we do know a variety of ways to reliably induce hypnosis. The techniques I use in my private practice employ guided control of breath, sight and hearing. But, hypnosis is so powerful that mild forms of it can also be induced spontaneously, during:

• Exercise
• Yoga
• Meditation
• Religious worship
• Playing or listening to music
• Watching TV or playing video games
• Hunger/fasting
• Having a fever
• Sleeplessness
• Oxygen deprivation
• Long-distance driving
• Intoxication

So, hypnosis… you’re seriously saying I can catch it? Like a sneeze?

It’s more like static electricity; hypnosis does in fact behave a lot like a static shock or a magnetic force. It’s a power that, under certain circumstances with certain tools and techniques, gets ‘caught’ (in a sense) to induce an altered state of consciousness in a living organism, much like light can be captured to start a fire. As with any natural trait, there’s a great range of sensitivity to hypnotic power - some are very susceptible to it, others are highly resistant.

I’ve personally observed that some people with certain types of conditions - Parkinson’s disease, autism, bipolar disorder, epilepsy, Tourette’s and others - are unusually affected somehow by hypnotics.

Again: we just don’t know.

So, hypnosis, altered states - are they wrong/bad?

That’s a value judgment so it depends on your personal perspective. Some forms of hypnotic power unquestionably cause unqualified harm and are used for pure evil. But, people all over the world for millennia have found real healing by capturing this mysterious hypnotic power, using traditional techniques passed down through generations. You alone, reader, should decide for yourself, free from undue influence of any kind, what you believe: everyone should have that right.

A general unspoken consensus exists that strong forms of hypnosis at an early age can cause health problems later in life - so, many altered states are regulated by government. For example, in every country on earth, drugs are restricted by age or medical prescription, when they’re not just banned outright. This always includes alcoholic beverages and nicotine products. Winning money can cause an altered state of consciousness - that’s why gambling is regulated in a similar way in most places. So are porn/sex, extreme sports, operating a fast vehicle, body modifications like tattoos, and other activities and behaviors.

Is hypnosis habit-forming/addictive?

Yes, it can be. For a person who experiences a lot of tension/stress in his/her/their everyday life, a chemical altered state from drugs or alcohol - and also from behaviors like sex or gambling - can feel so relaxing and disinhibiting that s/t/he/y doesn’t want to return to normal non-hypnotized life. This can cause a behavioral cycle, reinforced by well-studied brain chemistry.

Is hypnosis immoral/sinful/demonic?

This view is particularly held by a certain kind of fringe religious group. Highly controlling moralistic sects often use their own hypnotic techniques: namely social pressure. That cluster of hypnotics works best on people without much prior exposure to hypnotic power, so it’s often applied early in life before a person’s sense of self gets strongly formed.

The answer to this question is of course for you, the reader, to decide. Every person should define his/her/their own hypnotic power.

How can I experience hypnosis?

• Autohypnosis: The Latin prefix “auto-“ means “do-it-yourself” - it’s actually pretty surprising how easy autohypnosis (hypnotizing yourself) is. I will explain later why a straightforward list of hypnosis exercises/techniques is inherently problematic… but nevertheless you’ll find autohypnosis instructions if you search the web. You can also easily find autohypnosis manuals clogging up used bookstores or videos clogging up the internet; most are very cheesy.

• Visit a hypnotherapist: In most places, the terms “hypnotherapist” and “hypnotherapy” are legally restricted to nurses and doctors - the field remains otherwise essentially unregulated, so caveat emptor. Author Theodore Sturgeon famously quipped that “ninety percent of everything is crap;” this certainly applies to professional hypnotherapists and all of for-profit corporate “health care.”

• Aerobic exercise: Running, hiking, bicycling, climbing, rowing - they all cause a very pleasant form of mild low-level hypnosis.

• Donating blood/plasma: You should donate blood or blood products because it provides great karma, saves lives and because only about 3% of people do it - but also because it causes a strong hypnotic buzz. Make an appointment with your local blood center and see for yourself.

• Ingest drugs: Many drugs can increase a person’s susceptibility to hypnosis. The easiest by far to make and acquire is alcohol - it often gets made by accident when unpasteurized juice is left out too long. Go ahead, reader, have a shot - there you go, you’re slightly hypnotized now. Psychedelic drugs, including LSD, DMT and psilocybin, have the strongest hypnotic effect without also causing sedation (sleep/unconsciousness).

What are psychedelic drugs? What’s a psychedelic experience?

Many of the effects of hypnosis that I’ve described are all also well-known side effects from consuming what are called psychedelic drugs, which work by acting on the body's receptors for serotonin, a neurotransmitter. Serotonin is how our brains tell us, "Yuck, get it out!" For example, we vomit when we eat something poisonous because of the serotonin receptors in our stomachs.

Is there a relationship between hypnosis and psychedelic drugs/experiences?

We don’t know for sure - but, the experience of hypnosis is, in fact, in many ways very much the same as a psychedelic experience, and serotonin may be responsible for both. More research is badly needed, and progress is slow because psychedelic drugs are illegal in most of the world, with only a very few exceptions.

Can I be hypnotized against my will?

The idea that a person can be hypnotized against his/her/their free will - in the form of brainwashing, thought reform, “covert hypnosis” or by any other name - continues to captivate our imaginations and fill our science fiction media, even though the idea has yet to translate to science reality. There just isn’t any solid evidence - but that doesn’t mean a lot of people aren’t trying! Subliminal messaging and hypnotic persuasion is everywhere these days; sure, it’s inspired by a lot of hype and not a lot of fact, but does that really matter when it’s so ubiquitous and inescapable? Many forms of it arguably constitute gross human rights violations!

My personal observation as a hypnotist: ‘Free will’ is shockingly broad, especially before a person’s sense of self is well-developed. There’s an awful lot of room in those concepts, ‘free will’ and ‘sense of self’ for a skilled hypnotist to play around with! So, the answer to this question? A resounding ‘yes, but not exactly.’ In a way, advanced hypnotics moots this question because a skilled hypnotist doesn’t really need to bypass free will, don’t you see, reader?

When I was young, before I had a well-formed sense of self, hypnotic power ruined my life. Maybe that’s why I wrote this book: to spread understanding and awareness, and maybe help someone who doesn’t understand hypnotics yet (like I didn’t) avoid my fate.

Someone tried to hypnotize me once and couldn’t - why not?

To get hypnotized, you have to want to be hypnotized - that’s the most important part of hypnotics, by far. So, the most likely answer to this question, by far, is, well… that person couldn’t hypnotize you because you didn’t want to get hypnotized!

Hypnosis makes most people very, very uncomfortable. More than uncomfortable, actually - it causes a visceral, instinctive response, more like reacting to a bad odor than a difference of opinion. Many people hear about the benefits of hypnosis, say they want to get hypnotized… but when see/feel it in practice, they recoil and totally tense up. They just don’t like it, it’s that simple - they may want to want it, but don’t want it.

It’s also possible the hypnotist lacked technique, or just wasn’t a very nice person. Me personally: on days when I’m in a bad mood or have some bad karma hanging over me, I can’t hypnotize very well.

How does hypnosis really work?

As I just explained, we don’t really know enough to answer this question very well. I've already defined hypnosis loosely (as an altered state characterized by focus, relaxation and suggestibility) and briefly discussed how it behaves (like light, electricity or magnetism). But beyond that, we run into problems.

Hypnotics is culture-dependent. The hypnotics of a century ago, swinging pocket watches and handlebar mustaches… that stuff looks just as hokey and outdated now as Dixieland jazz or stagecoach travel. And hypnotics from a foreign culture looks just as foreign and strange as anything else from a foreign country.

You might expect a work like this to list hypnosis techniques and provide hypnosis instructions - that’s certainly an approach that seems reasonable at first… a little pointy-headed but totally reasonable. (For this and no other reason you will find some very brief autohypnosis instructions later.) And yet… if you’re reading this, you’re probably familiar with that kind of guide, and you probably also know it has absolutely no shelf life whatsoever. Hypnosis manuals are disproportionately overrepresented at your average used bookseller - deservedly, because most aren’t worth the paper they’re written on, but also because they only apply to the culture and time they’re written in. These days it takes at most a decade for a movie or TV show to start showing its age - and the shelf life of a typical hypnosis manual, tape/video or course is certainly no longer than that.

So a taxonomy of hypnotics, like a guide for stamps or birds or classic cars, just isn’t really possible - what do? In situations like this, scientists often turn to mental models. A physical model of a car or building allows a designer/architect, for example, to engage with their work even when the real thing is huge, or maybe even hasn’t been built or even started yet. No designer/architect would ever expect to know, or be interested in knowing, about all possible cars, or all possible buildings! In the same way, mental models allow scientists to engage with theoretical subjects, when the real thing isn’t accessible or easy to observe - and a mental model helps scientists do that more deeply and thoughtfully than they could with just an encyclopedia.

The most well-known and accepted model for hypnotics as of this writing is the induction model. That’s mostly because 1) it’s old and 2) it’s basically, mostly, vaguely consistent with generally accepted principles of psychiatry and psychology - even though its roots are totally pre- and non-scientific (more on that later). The induction model is very much not the best or only model of hypnotics, at all. (This writer gives it a D grade.) I think its most glaring conceptual flaws and shortcomings will be so obvious I won’t even need to point them out. Many models of hypnotics exist other than the induction model; I am particularly struck by how many pre-industrial, pre-scientific, indigenous and pre-Columbian models of hypnotics remain useful, workable and accurate - many score better than the induction model in all three categories. I myself synthesize many different models of hypnosis in my work and my life - and as your understanding and experience grows, reader, I strongly encourage you to do the same. Be skeptical. Don’t take this book or anything you read for granted, and don’t take me or anyone else at their word. Be a scientist; go out and experiment. Hypnotics isn’t a spectator sport.

What’s the induction model of hypnotics?

The induction model is a strict behaviorist model of hypnotics. Behaviorism explains everything about behavior and the brain in terms of stimuli and responses - and nothing else. So for a behaviorist, hypnosis is just a stimulus-response cycle in phases:

Induction → Maintenance ↔ Amplification → Arousal

Here’s what hypnosis looks like according to the induction model:

• A stimulus induces the state of hypnosis - and then, once induced…
• …further stimulus maintains and/or amplifies the state of hypnosis - otherwise…
• …the subject arouses, and the state of hypnosis ends - either…
  • due to an arousal stimulus, or
  • when the maintenance/amplification stimulus fails, fades, or stops

To assert strictly that’s all there is to hypnosis - stimulus, response, stimulus, response - that’s what I mean by “strict behaviorism.”

Note: all these phases can occur either gradually or suddenly. Some therapists use spirals and strobing lights - these sensory inductions work very gradually and gently and require co-operative informed subjects. Stage hypnotists, on the other hand, are famous for shock inductions: for example, snapping your fingers and shouting “Sleep!” Shock inductions work in an instant, often before a subject knows what’s happening… that is, when they work at all: they’re notoriously unreliable and they don’t always work on everyone. (More on shock inductions later.)

Note also: the induction model is completely agnostic, totally silent regarding agency - one of its few parts I unequivocally like. None of any of this requires a hypnotist. The induction model perfectly accepts and readily accommodates the possibility of accidental hypnosis - a phenomenon confirmed by anyone who has ever missed their bus stop or highway exit lost in thought.

OK… the induction model. So, that’s the ‘official’ explanation for hypnosis in the modern Western world?

For a few hundred years now, basically, yes. Ask a Western-style doctor or professor in the early 21st century about hypnosis, and 99% of the time there’s a 99% chance you’ll get some version of the induction model. (You’ll probably also hear a lot of dreary behaviorist Freudian claptrap about “the subconscious” and “the ego” and more not worth repeating here.)

Explaining how we believe that shit, and why we’ve believed it essentially without question or change for hundreds of years, despite flimsy and scant evidence - that could take a History of Science PhD thesis, I can’t do it justice here, I won’t even try. Instead I’ll just compile this shamefully brief timeline of behaviorism and hypnotics, and encourage you, reader, to form your own opinion about the lives many of them really lived and what they really believed:

Islamic medicine, 10th century: first written mention of anything recognizable as what we now call hypnosis.

Franz Mesmer: First in the West to describe a lot of what we now call hypnosis: called it “animal magnetism.” Physician whose treatments employ elaborate, dramatic, theatrical props and gestures. A British royal commission (one that included an elderly Benjamin Franklin) investigates Mesmer and finds him a crackpot/crook. Dies in obscurity, totally discredited, but his name lives on in the word “mesmerize.”

• Abbé Faria: Arguably the first recognizably modern hypnotist. A Catholic monk from Goa, India who rejects “animal magnetism” and proposes instead a “power of suggestion” - remarkably modern. Also dies in obscurity. Remains little-known.

• The European (“Nancy”) school (Liébeault, Charcot, Braid and Coué): Physicians from Nancy, France start a hypnosis fad in Europe. Highly personal feuds and debates generate much press but little science and lots of backlash. Charcot believes hypnosis is a hysteria or pathological disease; others disagree.

• Sigmund Freud: Not a behaviorist. Investigates hypnosis, finds it unreliable, abandons it in favor of psychotherapy. His dismissal carries enormous weight; continues to marginalize hypnotics today.

• The behaviorist golden age (Watson, Skinner): Freud and behaviorism tacked together. Insists only observable behavior matters: thoughts, feelings, and consciousness all irrelevant/illusory. Altered states suspicious (not easy stimulus-response cycles). Further stigmatizes hypnosis.

• The cognitive revolution (Chomsky): Whoops, turns out thoughts and feelings do matter! Damage done? Oh well.

• The American (“Hollywood”) school (Hubbard, Erickson, Elman): Things get messy. Hubbard tacks together Freud, behaviorism, hypnosis and past lives. Sells books but spectacularly unscientific; gains no medical community acceptance. Erickson becomes legendary as a therapist and hypnotist, but idiosyncratic poorly-documented technique mires successors in quackery and infighting (NLP). Elman popularizes shock induction, fractionation, other innovations - but also later sucked into false claims and quackery. (More on fractionation later.)

But what’s so wrong with the induction model? It seems reasonable.

I wrote that the induction model of hypnosis prevails because it’s 1) old and 2) consistent with modern psychiatry (but not entirely, and only vaguely). I’ll add a third reason here: the induction model makes us feel good. Strict behaviorism often makes intuitive sense - it feels right, tidy, reasonable, believable - because we want to believe that brain and behavior are the same - that brains are just machines, responding to stimuli with behaviors, just the way a machine responds when the ON button or GO pedal gets pressed. (Spoiler alert: that’s not how it works at all.) As an added bonus, of course, this makes it easy to use a guilt/blame/responsibility framework when discussing brains and brain health - because after all, only an irresponsible operator would fail to address defective machinery.

Most people like me aren’t neurologists or psychiatrists and we don’t know spit about brain science. Behavior is the most immediate and visibly striking manifestation of whatever the hell’s really happening up in a person’s brain - so it’s just quickest and easiest for us non-scientists to define the latter by the former, one with the other. Problem is, that’s wrong! Like, totally wrong! It feels good, it confirms social norms, it has roots in shared history, it’s even supported by some evidence… but the brain-behavior myth is incorrect, very much so, very measurably so. Francis Crick famously called it “the astonishing hypothesis” in a 1995 book - but its astonishing wrongness is the only thing astonishing about it.

The brain-behavior myth is incorrect for many reasons - but I argue the most important is a factor that, arguably more than any other, elevates an ordinary idea to a real scientific theory: predictive power. A real scientific theory makes predictions about the world which we can then go out and investigate - it’s a kind of roadmap or blueprint for further scientific work - that’s how the classical mechanics of Isaac Newton gradually led to Einstein’s relativity, which in turn gradually led to Niels Bohr and nuclear physics, and will apparently someday gradually lead someone to a Unified Theory of Everything. And, what do scientists do when a model doesn’t have predictive power? What happens when a model’s predictions aren’t supported by more science? Sometimes this is when a classic sign of scientific fraud appears: “stretching” of either the existing model to fit the existing evidence, or vice versa:

The Catholic Church stretched to support geocentrism during its persecution of Galileo Stretching to support racialism was widespread during the transatlantic slave trade The USSR stretched to oppose evolutionary biology, causing the Holodomor Modern “Big Pharma” stretches constantly to promote sales

Most predictive failures in the history of science are less catastrophically tragic than the ones I’ve listed above, but they’re usually no less bizarre, and some are so extreme and distorted they resemble alternate-reality role-play (a little more on that later). But this predictive failure right here - of strict behaviorism in general, and the induction model of hypnotics in particular - it really stands out: as particularly spectacular, offensive, and outrageous… and it’s currently “stretching” into its fourth or fifth generation, with no end in sight. Notorious attempted extensions of strict behaviorism and/or the induction model, all of which show painfully obvious signs of pseudoscientific stretching, include:

• Arguably all of psychoanalysis (Sigmund Freud)
• General semantics (Alfred Korszybski)
• Cognitive behavioral therapy (Aaron Beck)
• Psychic driving (Donald Ewan Cameron)
• The so-called chemical imbalance theory or “monoamine hypothesis” (various)
• Dianetics (L. Ron Hubbard)
• Re-evaluation counseling (Harvey & Tim Jackins)
• Attachment therapy (Foster Kline)
• Neurolinguistic programming (Richard Banzler, John Grinder)
• Dialectical behavior therapy (Marsha M. Linehan)
• Eye movement desensitization/reprocessing (Francine Shapiro)

At this point, the situation’s worse than a joke - but, we don’t have an alternative mental model that feels as good as behaviorism feels, don’t you see, reader? We don’t have an alternative that gives us a tidy way to categorize, label and blame people - one that also just happens to fit so very neatly into the 21st century Western lifestyle. So… the strict behaviorism remains, as does the induction model, and attempts to extend it continue.

Strict behaviorism is a sad dark cloud over science and culture; it’s like a ball-and-chain around each of our necks, weighing humanity down. The more a discipline shackles itself to strict behaviorism, the less predictive power it has, and thus less to say, to the rest of the scientific community and honestly to anyone. Until all of science and culture is drained of strict behaviorism, like a bog of muck, hypnotics won’t be more than a morbid curiosity - it can’t.

Well, if the induction model is so bad and wrong, why even bring it up?

Nobody who continues to study hypnotics after reading this book can avoid the induction model now. Behaviorism has so dominated so completely for so long that its ideas and key terms, including the word induction itself, are now embedded in pop science and common speech. Hypnotists use words like induction and ideas like susceptibility for cultural, cosmetic and convenience reasons. Use of language isn’t necessarily an endorsement of where that language comes from; the map is not the territory. ;)

So where do we go from here?

Well, when a model has no predictive power, scientists revise it - a good scientist makes a better model and finds new evidence, instead of stretching the existing model or the existing evidence. But what does a better model of hypnotics look like? Earlier I shared that hypnosis feels and behaves a lot like light, or magnetism, or electricity - so maybe we can borrow concepts from the more robust models we have of optics or electromagnetic engineering to strengthen our weaker model of hypnotics.

Science describes electricity as a charge in a material called a conductor. The flow of charge through a conductor, or from one conductor to another, we call current. Both charge and current produce a field which can be measured and felt (ouch). When conductors are connected so that current flows through & between them in any useful or otherwise notable way, they form a circuit. Circuits can be artificial or natural; the brain is a bundle of complex natural circuits, just like consumer electronics products are bundles of artificial plastic circuits.

Charge, currents and fields are all predictable as they shift and flow around conductors and circuits - so much that we have names for the patterns of behavior they follow. And so, for example, a circuit is said to “feed back” whenever the current flowing out from a circuit gets directed back into it, and a circuit is said to be “short” or “shorted” when current flows along an abnormal or unintended connection. Feedback has many useful applications and short-circuiting is a common hazard - so the science of electrical engineering concerns itself extensively with both, and also many other similar predictable named phenomena. Electricity follows such predictable patterns that its terminology has entered common speech as metaphor - so, one might refer to any criticism at all as “feedback,” or any kind of rapid growth or progress as a “surge,” or any clever person as having “short-circuited” the competition.

The mental model for electricity is so strong - the framework is so robust - that people borrow from it in their everyday speech. So let’s do the same - and instead of treating hypnosis as just a response to stimuli, let’s treat it like we treat electricity and talk about charges, fields, and currents. Yes, let’s stop calling brains stimulus-response machines, and instead call them conductors and circuits.

So what does a circuit model of hypnotics look like?

Actually, to find out, first let’s wipe the slate clean and stop calling brains anything at all. Let’s start our model by assuming nothing at all and forgetting everything we know about how brains work. At the very least, that frees us from strict behaviorism and the induction model. We aren’t bound by Crick’s “astonishing(ly dumb) hypothesis” anymore: we can still talk about behaviorist stuff like inductions and amplifiers and hypnotic susceptibility as much as ever, whenever it might serve us - but, we don’t have to treat that stuff like a sacrament anymore. Maybe some inductions don’t need an induction stimulus, for example. Maybe some phases of hypnosis don’t correspond neatly to an easy-to-measure stimulus. That alone is a good start; it means we can relax and loosen up a bit.

But, you might ask: without a stimulus-response cycle, how can we explain hypnosis? To do that we have to complete the shift to a circuit model: let’s start thinking of brains as circuits. To do this, we ask:

Do our brains hold a charge or conduct a flow that’s distinctly hypnotic? Even if our brains do in fact hold such hypnotic charge/flow, is that in fact what causes what we call hypnosis? If “hypnotic” patterns of charge/flow exist, are they recognizable? If such patterns do exist and are recognizable, do they correspond, at all recognizably, to phases of hypnosis from the induction model?

Electricians think about electricity by recognizing patterns in its flow: sparks mean a short, squeaking means feedback, and so on. So, as hypnotists, let’s try thinking about hypnosis the same way: by recognizing patterns in the flow of power/energy.

This may seem subtle, purely semantic, even silly - but actually it’s a radical crucial perceptual shift. And it makes a lot of sense - actually, framed this way it seems downright obvious. Of course the hypnotic stimulus doesn’t cause the response in a direct, cause-and-effect way! It should have been obvious: finger-snapping and saying ‘Sleep!’ doesn’t directly cause hypnosis, any more than that red stuff at the head of a match directly causes a flame. It’s not the red stuff that starts the fire - but rather energy, friction and heat, flowing through the red stuff and that scratchy surface on the matchbox. And in the same way, maybe it isn’t the snap or the ‘Sleep!’ directly doing anything - maybe it’s a current or charge of hypnotic power which happens to flow or change when those fingers snap and that word ‘Sleep!’ is spoken somehow. But how?

Yeah, exactly: how? If the stimulus isn’t directly causing the response, then how does hypnosis happen, according to the circuit model?

To extend the circuit model, we do have to accept that strictly speaking none of the following ‘cause’ hypnosis:

• Spirals
• Flashing/blinking/strobing lights
• Bright neon colors
• High-speed motion, especially circular motion (spinning)
• Prolonged eye contact
• Hypoxia (heavy breathing)
• Snapping your fingers and shouting ’Sleep!’ as a large audience focuses on you

But all those things can very often cause measurable interruptions to normal everyday brain electrical patterns - in effect, when the brain gets any of that input, it hits the brakes, waves a red-flag and says, “Whoa!” In some cases, all of the above are way more than just startling, distracting, or annoying: they all can actually stop electrical activity in the brain.

Shutting down a brain’s normal electrical patterns and connections, with these techniques I just listed or in other ways, interrupts lots of the brain’s control systems: for attention, filtering, cognition, even basic stuff like stomach, pupils, sweat glands and way more. And that seems to open up the brain, for just a moment, to allow new electrical patterns and connections to control those things - a bit like the strange eerie phenomena we see in our homes and on our appliances after a lightning storm, blackout or power surge. None of these interruptions strictly speaking “hypnotize” anyone: what’s really happening is a shock to a circuit, just big enough that power flows in an unintended unusual way. What we call hypnosis is really just a particular pattern of variation/interruption to normal brain function.

This explains why shock-style and other inductions…

• …often don’t work: not every shock creates the right interruption in every brain
• …work immediately (when they do): disruption is rapid and very sudden
• …require a receptive subject: one with appropriate baseline patterns
• …require maintenance: because without reinforcement normal non-hypnosis patterns return

Instead of asserting that hypnosis is merely a cycle of responses to stimuli, like the induction model, the circuit model considers all forms of hypnosis as patterns of energy flow, made possible by interrupting the brain’s normal patterns. With the induction model, hypnotics was a search mission - for the correct stimulus, the perfect induction, the best amplifier. But the circuit model makes it clear how mistaken that approach is. Hypnotics is actually very patient, restrained, focused work: the work of recognizing and cultivating energy, and not searching hawklike for anything.

Is the circuit model consistent with brain science - what we know, how we conduct it, etc.?

“Patterns of variation or interruption to normal brain function” - that’s exactly how scientists describe:

• Migraine: distinct measurable patterns of brain polarization waves called cortical spreading depression
• Autism and Asperger’s syndrome: particularly observable in theta and alpha waves
• Both ADD/ADHD and Tourette syndrome: particular neurons that show a cluster of distinct wave patterns
• Bipolar disorder: particularly observable in delta, beta, theta and gamma waves
• Schizophrenia: particularly observable in beta and gamma waves
• Parkinson’s disease: particularly observable in beta waves, thought to be related to dopamine depletion

The circuit model of hypnotics is absolutely consistent with other models of brain phenomena - but way more important than that, it’s testable the same way as other brain phenomena and forms of brain science. Even if it’s vague, even if it’s experimental and needs refinement, the circuit model is already giving us an idea of science work we need to do. The circuit model is already tacitly daring us to prove it wrong - and that puts it very squarely in the territory of mainstream science.